AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Heard Shri Lakhan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
The applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.06.2026 passed by respondent No.3 (Annexure No.A-1).
(ii)This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to correct the name of applicant in the service record of Husband of applicant as “Mamta Devi” instead of “Manda Devi” and start her family pension immediately and also pay arrears of family pension along with admissible interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 04.02.2020 the date of actual payment.
(iii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.
(iv)Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
Briefly stated, the case of the applicant is that her husband, Late Shri Rajendra, was initially appointed under the respondents on 30.06.1974 and retired from service on 31.08.2012 from the post of Technician-I. After his death on 04.02.2020, the applicant claimed family pension as his legally wedded wife. According to the applicant, her name has been recorded as “Manda Devi” in the service/pension records, whereas her correct name is “Mamta Devi”. The applicant, therefore, approached the respondents for correction of her name in the service records and for release of family pension. The representation of the applicant dated 04.12.2025 was considered by respondent No.3 and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 05.06.2026. From the impugned order, it is evident that the respondents examined the relevant service records of Late Shri Rajendra and the applicable Railway Board instructions, particularly Railway Board’s letter No. E(NG)I/2022/NM/2 dated 17.04.2023 (RBE No.54/2023). The respondents observed that no Gazette Notification or other conclusive documentary evidence establishing that “Manda Devi” and “Mamta Devi” are one and the same person had been produced.
Referring to the impugned order, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the applicant can be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, if the requisite documentary evidence, including the Gazette Notification, is produced.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall publish the requisite Gazette Notification and thereafter submit the same along with the relevant supporting documents before the competent authority. He, therefore, submits that the present Original Application may be disposed of with liberty to the applicant to approach the respondents afresh after submission of the requisite documents.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the representation of the applicant was rejected primarily on the ground that the requisite documentary evidence, including Gazette Notification establishing that “Manda Devi” and “Mamta Devi” are one and the same person, had not been produced. The respondents have also specifically recorded in the impugned order that upon production of the requisite documentary evidence, the matter may be reconsidered in accordance with the applicable rules and Railway Board’s instructions. In view of the submission made by learned Central Administrative Tribunalcounsel for the applicant that the applicant shall publish the Gazette Notification and thereafter submit the same before the competent authority, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose will serve in pending this OA.
Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to obtain/publish the requisite Gazette Notification and submit the same, along with other supporting documentary evidence, before the competent authority/respondents. On receipt of such representation along with the requisite documents, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with the applicable rules and Railway Board’s instructions, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within three months from the date of receipt of such representation. There shall be no order as to costs.